Family Files Lawsuit Against Palm Beach County Florida Sheriff

In Palm Beach County Florida, in October 2010, 17 –year old Jeremy Hutton took the keys to his parent’s van and took off in it. Jeremy has severe Down Syndrome. Jeremy’s mom called 911 and reported it. Deputies located and followed the van. Deputy Jason Franqui got out of his car and fired 6 times, hitting Jeremy with three bullets. Jeremy’s family has filed a lawsuit against the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s office for unjustified shooting. They are represented by attorney Stuart Kaplan, who stated;

“The deputy says, ‘I looked at him, he looked at me and made a sharp right turn and turned the vehicle towards me. That’s a lie.”

The Palm Beach County’s internal investigation and the state’s attorney found the deputy’s decision to use force was justified. Kaplan also stated that Jeremy, who has the mental capacity of a 6-year old, wasn’t a threat.

Photos of the van show that the bullet holes were to the driver’s side and back of the vehicle. WPTV reports that the Hutton case is one of 16 shootings since 2005 where deputies shot into moving vehicles. The Palm Beach Sheriff (PBSO) has a policy that prohibits deputies from shooting into moving cars. Sheriff Ric Bradshaw promoted the restrictive policy as one of his first policy changes after he was elected in 2005.

According to PBSO’s deadly force policy, shooting into moving vehicles is prohibited except when a deputy reasonably believes that someone in the vehicle is threatening to shoot them or if the vehicle is being used as a weapon and shooting at the vehicle wouldn’t harm anyone else nearby.

As in the case with Jeremy, when he was shot, he ran into another vehicle. Shooting into moving vehicles places the public at risk.

Jeremy’s parent, Amy and Donald Hutton, began adopting children with severe disabilities in 1975 after they read about children from Vietnam who needed families. Because of conditions in their home, the Huttons are barred from locking any child in a room for any reason.

After watching the film I noticed several things that cause the lawyers statements to be questionable. The first thing I noticed was the van did strike the patrol car, look at the debris and damage to the door. The second was while there is no doubt that the officer discharged his weapon at (into?) the van he was to the right (passenger side) of the vehicle and there is not way that his shots should be on the drivers side of the van, (“Photos of the van show that the bullet holes were to the driver’s side and back of the vehicle”, that is an excerpt from the article). While tragic, I would question what the officer did that was not legally justified? We might also ask how it was that the young man was able to gain access to the van, and how much supervision that he was receiving that he was able to take the van?

amazing stuff…the van was STOPPED at the light and the officer drove his car in front of it, then AFTER they shot him YES his van hit the car as it moved forward at no time did the van make any right turn directly at the officer the OPPOSITE happened the officer place his car in FRONT of the van……..there is no way that shooting is legal or justified.

ty, because clearly from that video it was NOT possible for the driver to make a hard right turn to go at the officer the car was blocking any such turn and the officer is NOT to the RIGHT of the van he clearly is on the LEFT side and the bullet holes in the van show and the video confirms.